Re: A must-see for anybody on this list

[Urs Liska]

Am 14.02.2013 17:50, schrieb Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
> On 02/14/2013 05:32 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
> > Maybe I'll get in touch with you before. I already intended to 
> > present the
> > outline of the presentation here and ask for feedback - I think it's 
> > an issue
> > that concerns many of us ...
> > (The presentation is due at the end of April, so it will be some time 
> > still).
>
> That'd be great.  There's a paper I'm working on right now (not 
> oriented towards music) which I'll try and share with you when it's 
> done -- might be useful despite its different orientation.
OK, I'm looking forward to that.
> >  From the discussion on this list I assume that there are two very 
> > different
> > 'stages' to this. One is the raw musical content, which seems to be 
> > quite easily
> > converted (I think something like an XSLT-like transformation of 
> > LilyPond's
> > music stream).
> > If one wants to also export LilyPond's layout qualities it would be 
> > much more
> > intricate because at the time LilyPond makes its layout decisions 
> > that music
> > stream isn't available anymore.
>
> What I was thinking of was e.g. how well the conversion process would 
> preserve articulations, ornaments, etc.  Some layout aspects here have 
> "raw musical content" value, e.g. think of a turn that is placed on 
> the second half of a note.
Oh sorry, I forgot to write that I didn't answer your real question. 
Honestly I don't know how perfect such an automatic process could get. 
Obviously one _has_ to expect manual work after the conversion. But I 
think that at least things like the relations like articulations and the 
note they are attached to can be realized quite well.
> > Preparing a "manuscript" with LilyPond isn't the way to go because 
> > nowadays many
> > (most) publishers won't pay engraving staff when they also can get 
> > editors doing
> > that work for free. (This actually is the reason I didn't get a 
> > contract for
> > editing a few works for UE).
>
> True with composers too, I think.  I remember about 14 years back a 
> friend told me that his publisher had got in touch with him and said, 
> "OK, we're going to buy you a copy of Finale.  The quid pro quo is 
> that now you do all your own score preparation."
I know quite a few composers who wouldn't actually want anybody else to 
"mess" with their scores. And I know composers who deliberately stick to 
writing by hand (and can do so because their handwriting looks like 
printed).
But of course it _is_ sad that composers (as well as editors) have to 
take an even larger share of the production costs. I know that even a 
famous composer like Aribert Reimann has to pay the preparation of the 
performance material for his operas himself by now :-(
> Then again, when you go to many 20th-century works, the score is often 
> just a facsimile of the composer's fair copy.
Practical, isn't it (for the publisher)?
But OTOH I have played several pieces from the original manuscripts and 
was regularely disappointed to see the printed scores later because they 
lack so much "expression".
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user